Return Home
It is currently Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:07 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 351 posts ]  Go to page Previous 13 4 5 6 724 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:33 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 536
Quote:
Oh, suddenly everything you write makes sense. It's all from the perspective of White Guilt, which I know so well ... it's a form of defense for the evergoing unspoken accusation from the environment that you are "undeserving" of your life.
Yeah, you’re not the first to slap that old “white guilt” or “liberal guilt” label onto me. Always by white people, astonishingly! lol I dunno, maybe there's something to it. "Undeserving" isn't the word...maybe "ill-gotten gains."

It’s not about guilt. It’s about seeing clearly and acknowledging the wrongs which have been perpetrated by the dominant power, and working to dismantle unjust advantages which are still left over. You can roll your eyes when you hear a defense of groups that are judged, mistreated, and robbed of their rights based on external characteristics opposite those of powerful groups. Of course, if you talk to the victims, such prejudice is so well known as to scarcely be a topic of conversation. Talk to any black person in America today and he or she will give you a story about something denied to them because of their race. It’s about discrimination against people who are deserving. In your view, I am exhibiting some egotistical self-loathing. In my view, I am exhibiting a desire to see fairness.
Quote:
There is no such thing as a level playing-field and there never will be. It's also the least of our worries, but it's a wonderful vehicle for fear, accusations, victim-mentality, and so on.
This is a cynical, but not unjustifiable belief: that human beings will always be greedy, destructive, divisive, and violent. We will forever remain egotistical, fearful, and suspicious. There will always be inferior and exploited classes of people and dominant and exploiting classes of people. If you take this view, of course you will see efforts to even the playing field as stupid and pointless. Realize that this is only a belief. You are choosing to see the world in this way.

The alternative hypothesis is that we are evolving. Humans have come learn the secrets of the living body, the natural world, even the genesis of the universe. We are coming to understand ourselves as one unified body, experiencing this reality separately, but together. With these understandings, we can perhaps take charge of our own evolution, and forge a planet (and beyond) of cooperation and equality, based on our commonalities and not our differences.

We are part of an evolving system. Yes, I think it is entirely possible for this to become a peaceful planet. In the above essay, Tom says, we as individuals need to “begin to dismantle (gently over a long term view) the cultural (manmade) structures that stand in the way of optimizing our system/culture for all people.” I interpret the implication there to be that we are capable of doing this. I would agree. But I’m an optimist and have utopian inclinations.
Quote:
whatever IS, is your starting point.

Not only that - it is what it is because everything else failed to survive. Right or wrong is a pointless a discussion.
This is a fundamental, but not uncommon, misunderstanding of evolution. What is (what has survived to the present moment), is not necessarily the most profitable from a bigger picture perspective. That is, an entity can evolve and survive because it is fittest in a particular niche, but it may be destructive to the macro-ecology. In that case, the macro ecology will find a way to destroy the destabilizing element, or that element will propagate itself to the point that the entire system is destabilized and begins to devolve. Right or wrong is not pointless. You are still thinking of evolution in entirely biological terms. Evolution of consciousness is different. For the first time in history, human intelligence can actually begin to control the path of ours and our planet’s evolution, meaning conversations about right and wrong are vital to ensure that the destructive elements are weeded out and the helpful elements are strengthened.
Quote:
The future belongs to whatever survives. And it won't be western feminism.
Western feminism in the form I assume you are referring to is a historical phenomenon. It is contingent to a specific time (the preceding 100-200 years) and a specific place (western industrial societies). To the benefit of all humanity, it has largely achieved its aims in these states: rights for women within marriage; freedom for women of education, choice of vocation, and mobility; punishment for rapists and harassers. There is still quite a bit of work to do to dismantle a few thousand years of institutionalized sexism, but it is a good start. It cannot apply in that form to every state; feminism will have to take on local characteristics to succeed in Asia and Africa. And in the long-term, naturally the movement will need to evolve. I think it will, as long as there is still a desire for optimization of human freedom.

_________________
Everything is simpler than we can imagine, at the same time more complex and intertwined than can be comprehended--Goethe, Maxims & Reflections


Top
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:14 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 211
Location: Missouri
Japan is another country that seems to be forging ahead in an effort to evolve towards a gender-equal society. This website, http://www.gender.go.jp/english_contents/index.html by the Japanese “Gender Equality Bureau,” explains it all in detail.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:41 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6501
Location: Ocala, FL
Quote:
Japan is another country that seems to be forging ahead in an effort to evolve towards a gender-equal society. This website, http://www.gender.go.jp/english_contents/index.html by the Japanese “Gender Equality Bureau,” explains it all in detail.
Keep in mind who published that page.

Here is another take: "The annual World Economic Forum report on gender gaps, which measures social and political gender equality across 135 countries, has placed Japan 101st on the global ranking. That places Japanese women alongside those of, for example, Tajikistan or Gambia in terms of their political and social equality in society. Bangladesh ranks 15 points higher."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ers-shrug/


Top
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:16 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3499
Location: Florario/Ontorida
the key concept to absorb is that gender neutrality and "sameism" is a rational defensive response to the pathology of male oppression in a high entropy dynamic, but it is a transitional phase.

when male and female (and all the preference permutations) come together to form one organism with an unassailable commitment to the life cycle contract, in a low entropy dynamic, they are freed from this defensive posture to explore their inherent natural impulses, and negotiate specialization according to their true biological desires, subject to a) the sustainability rule and b) subject to higher ruleset considerations.

this manifestation of low entropy marriage has existed for thousands of years, in rare isolated pockets of syntropy, and existed in the world of Mad Men (though entirely unrepresented in that TV show), and in some families and cultures throughout the transitional period of the last few decades.

each family and subculture must go through this process that arrives upon the technical opening of decision space that arises from encountering the opportunities of middle class life and welfare for single mothers, where there is a choice to leave bad situations, and the natural response to the entropic dynamic are all these fear and defensive "don't tread on me" tactics.

When two marital partners make the evolutionary step of perceiving each other truely as "partner" rather than enemy, there is this huge decision space that opens up, not only in the moment, but as well for fair and trusted exchange over the entire life cycle.

The question then becomes, "what do you (the partner) really want", "what really pushes your buttons", "how can I make that happen", and then the partner asks the same questions regarding your needs and what you really want, and everyone wins.

She does not interfere with his impulse to go to Vegas with his buddies or buy gadgets, ...he does not interfere when she guiltily spends an evening watching "The Bachelor" or wants a new fridge (when the one you have seems just fine.)

We rather celebrate the apparently irrational and incomprehensible behavior of our partners. When low entropy women gather, they share stories of the bizarre behavior of their men, not from the point of view of fear, but from the point of view of curiosity and empathetic amusement. Same the other way. Like you would tell stories of the bizarre cute things toddlers say. This is an actual quasi-formal practise in Opus Dei communities, where men and women gather separately to support each other in framing the heterosexual experience in a positive light. (if MBT were to emulate this, it would of course include exploration of "best practises" for gay couples as well).

Where this gets deeply fun is to break bread at a table where you have an experienced straight couple and an experienced gay couple, and they share stories about hetero-homo differences and common ground. This leans into what I call "The Key West Protocol"...where it is culturally incompetent to hold a dinner or social event where there is homogeneity of sexual preference.

Low entropy is always seeking to cross barriers and reduce fear. There can be no greater abomination, especially within Temple, (and forum is our Temple) than investing in fear between tribes, under the MBT ethic.

Learning to love in this dynamic of primal man and primal woman, is good practise for learning to bridge all the other "other-gaps" in your life.

rich/poor
left/right
non-American/American
gay/straight
religious/non-religious
yankee/southerner
protestant country/catholic country
rural/urban
square/cool
PC/Apple
and on and on

working the other side of the street dramatically increases your decision space and your personal power.

What many do not realise is that Editor of the Harvard Law Review is an elected post...its not an appointment of the smartest student. The Black left was deadlocked against the White right in balloting. Obama was not either sides first choice. Obama was on the outs with the Black left because he occasionally had a beer with the White conservatives.

To break the deadlock, the White right went to the Black left and said, "we will support a black Editor as long as it is Barry (Barack)". And then Barack went on to do this at the national level. This is a pervasive principle to all of life, this making alliances across fear boundries.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:23 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 211
Location: Missouri
Sainbury,

Thanks for the added insight. I should have dug a little further.
I stand corrected.

Michael


Top
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:30 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:51 pm
Posts: 73
I believe Tom will get more than he bargained for...
One thing I did not see in the paper is that for women, children are the primary desire, and a mate a secondary desire. For men, the mate comes first and children second. I've seen quite a few divorces where my opinion is that the woman married because she wanted to have a baby, but did not really love the man. The man does not see this coming. It is probably not completely conscious on the woman's part; to some extent, she can't help it.

I have never fully accepted the evolutionary notion that men get an advantage by impregnating many females. A man who abandons pregnant females does not leave successful, living offspring. Among those species in which the male is required, such as birds and wolves, the male never abdicates, and if he dies, the young will probably not make it.

Hmmm, I'm not agreeing with Bette that wanting to be attractive is a learned trait. Is marriage not normal? I have never heard of any society, primitive, tribal or what have you, that does not have marriage although the attitude toward fidelity may be a bit different. Some animals marry, why not humans?

As to ovulation and cheating, I again wonder why Bette says less handsome. I think they might like a more physical guy, but not less handsome. Less nice, maybe. I am not sure I go so far as to assume it is a DNA trick to get impregnated by a rougher man, so much as when women ovulate, they are in heat...they will have a similar desire for sex and often even stronger than a man's normal sex drive, and just go for it. Speaking from experience, ovulation can be hard to handle. (No, I never cheated).
Quote:
Men are hardwired to direct their energy towards the mastery of the outside world.

I'm sorry but this is so patriarchal I can barely stand it Tom.
I wish I could agree with you Bette, but this seems like boilerplate feminism. Stereotypes are after all often a very good reflection of the general experience. I came to the very same above conclusion as Tom after spending a couple of years pondering these things. I learned that males and females were different (and I was always a tomboy) when I had children and watched them play at nursery school. Boys are different from girls. Nobody brow beat these little animals at the age of two or three to have such different responses. And actually, I see the reality of the male/external interest, female/internal interest pretty much everywhere, every day. There is no way our culture has successfully managed to so successfully get nearly everyone to spontaneously be interested in what they are supposed to, and display no interest in what they are not supposed to.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:09 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:27 am
Posts: 164
na


Last edited by Delak on Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:22 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:51 pm
Posts: 73
Johan,

I agree with this:
Quote:
The core of the hardcore feminist arguments is "because we have a modern technological society, evolution and biology don't matter."
But some of the stuff you say I think is just your own conjecture, regarding the 2nd and 3rd generation of certain types of marriages, and this:
Quote:
The reason matriarchal societies are so extremely rare is that they have no resistance to outside forces. The children of women in matriarchal societies are basically:

- boys who are taught to be unassertive
- girls who are taught that men are weak and unthreathening
Makes me sad as it seems you think that we must have patriarchy, and that men must be assertive with women. What do you know about matriarchal societies? Are the boys unassertive? Are they not capable of fighting? I think that they are.
++++++++++++++++++

As regards feminism, I have always been ambivalent, as I often feel diminished by it, because of the insistence on denying differences, and ultimately claiming that women can be just like men. If we want to be just like men, we do not value ourselves. It is very understandable why this happened, as women were oppressed and belittled as women.

If it is so that we live in a masculine society (and I strongly believe ours is toxicly so) then our feminism will simply tend toward a masculinization of women, rather than figuring out what women's true strengths are, unless we are very careful and thoughtful.

For example, our western society has so thoroughly discounted the female, that she had almost no role in the religion. The god is male, he has a son, and even the Holy Spirit was considered male in the traditional church. Such a thing is an impossibility from a more mystical understanding of God and Universe. It is so unbalanced that it is a sick. But if you look at some societies that have actually been more oppressive to females, the Chinese and the Indian, they nonetheless have a very prominent place in the universal worldview for the divine feminine, for the goddess, for the equal play of masculine and feminine forces.

This western situation was very discouraging and humiliating for women and may account for the direction feminism has taken.

Kroeran what you said regarding the monetized and nonmonetized economy is quite interesting, as our society has actually continued to masculinize and everything has joined the monetized economy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll tell you, I find male talents everywhere, and easy to spot. But the feminine - not so much. They say we multitask, but it's not really that easy and leads to errors.

Perhaps that is because men are the masters of the ten thousand things, and women are more like the void. A gender neutral society would be more Tao-like, respecting the feminine, and seeing it. Seeing the feminine, the earth and nature would be respected. Animals would be accorded their being.

The valley spirit never dies;
It is the Woman, primal mother.
Her gateway is the root of heaven and earth.
______________________
The highest good is like water.
Water gives life to the ten thousand things and does not strive.
It flows in places men reject and so is like the Tao.
________________________________
Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of a woman?
Giving birth and nourishing,
Bearing yet not possessing,
Working yet not taking credit,
Leading yet not dominating,
This is the Primal Virtue.
________________________
The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.
____________________________________

There used to be a woman's world and a man's world, and now there is only one world, and it is mostly the man's world. Are we better for it?
Here is this question:
"Its a good thing for society when women are in the Boardrooms and legislatures. The question rather is what is best for your family, marriage and children, as relates to seeking positions of power?"

The thing is, as the world is overpopulated, women can no longer stay home to raise 8 children. I wish women could and would stay home while their children are babies and toddlers. What is happening as women are pursuing the life of a man, is that they spend too many years single before marrying, and too many years working before bearing children, because they are afraid to stop and are not supported to stop. It makes sense in the male paradigm for a man to pursue his career from the beginning and stick to it. That is linear. But women, damn it, women are not men and we are the mothers. And we are not linear. We are cyclic. I'd like to see motherhood accorded its rightful place as the single most important, divine task in human life and women's careers make room for time to have children in peace. There are plenty of years left.

Of course men are the servants of women. Woman = Life, and we all must serve life. Women serve life by bearing children, and men serve life by serving women. This is the truth of the matter.

Why in heck has nature given us males who are so concerned to master the outside environment? Why, to serve us! They are so good at it and I am very grateful.

This, in my opinion is the reason why the males of all species desire to have sex so strongly. It goes far beyond the fleeting pleasure. There is something so deep in their need to connect with the female, because if they don't they have failed at life, and failed to serve life. This is the real reason why sex is so affirming for the male. Any male of any species who did not feel that way disappears from life. It is the very meaning of being male.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:21 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 536
This started out as a specific response, but has turned into a hodge-podge post of four ideas I’m going to throw out there.

1. I find it curious that a majority of definitions of feminism so far in this thread are those of “liberal feminism;” i.e. underrepresentation of women in politics and workplace, and equal rights in the public sphere. Feminism is a rich and diverse movement with loads of competing viewpoints and perspectives.

Also, it is easy to forget from our comfortable 2013 homes, but we should not forget the immense courage and sacrifice it took for women to fight for the rights they have today. Female suffrage, abortion and birth control rights, choice of marital partner and rights within that marriage, access to education, equal pay, protection from sexual predation, right to sexual expression.

Also don’t forget the horrific reality that many women still do not have those rights, are sold as sex slaves, circumcised, buried underneath a blanket with holes in the eyes to walk around outside. The world is a better place for feminism, and it would be even better if the lessons of feminism spread further.

2. Male dominance over the external environment has much more importance in agricultural and industrial societies, where physical work is required to survive, but this has lost its importance as we have entered the information age and created tools and technologies and social systems to do much of this work for us.

In my view, as technological innovations alter the external environment, males and females will evolve, over a very long period of time. As physical exertion and focus on the dominating the natural world becomes less important, males will begin to learn and practice the traditionally female practices of sensitivity, personal relationships, and communication. At the same time, females will have the opportunity to learn and practice the traditionally male practices of manipulation and mastery of the outside environment. These practices are sexless. They can be practiced by either side, and it is not some kind of unnatural aberration.

I do not think women should try to emulate the worst characteristics of the cutthroat competitive male ego. Nor do I think males should abandon their very natural inclinations to compete healthily, if they have them (I’m speaking from experience: I play ice hockey, skateboard, roughhouse with friends, etc.). But I do think that balance, cooperation, understanding, and empathy will increase as we reach across the traditional divide, which arose only out of necessity in a harsh early human environment, and start to emulate those positive traits so natural to the other sex.

3. Building on this above point: there is reason to question the usefulness of a rigid divide between male and female. Women who cannot bear children, men who are attracted to men, females who are born into male bodies…all of this blurs the line between the “two” sexes. There are males for whom all this talk about competing, fighting, and mastery is completely foreign, and there are females who have a natural urge to dominate and compete. Yes, there are boy toddlers who naturally act aggressive, but there are also boy toddlers who want to coddle dolls. To my mind, this is evidence of the evolution I described above, these are perfectly natural responses to the lessening importance of a divide between the sexes, and I welcome this variation in our species.

Also, we must consider the extent to which gender is socially or politically constructed. There is an excellent book called Deep Secrets: Boys' Friendships and the Crisis of Connection. The author did a series of interviews with boys across their high school careers, and found a common pattern (note that she expressly did not set out to seek this conclusion, but it bubbled up from the data): boys crave deep, loving, and emotionally intimate friendships with other boys, but beginning in high school they start resisting that urge out of fear of being labeled gay or feminine. I can tell you that I have first-hand experience of this.

4. Linking child-rearing to child-bearing is a cultural construction, not biological. Many women have no desire to raise their babies, or are wretched, wicked mothers (I have the misfortune of witnessing this latter with the mother of my nieces). Anyway, men are absolutely up to the task of child-rearing, or the task can be shared between the two, or done in the extended family, or even by the state if no one else will do it, as long as someone is watching out for the safety and well-being of the child. That women must stay home to raise a healthy kid is a belief—many, many lovely people were not raised by their mother attending to their every need for the first 12 years of their life.

_________________
Everything is simpler than we can imagine, at the same time more complex and intertwined than can be comprehended--Goethe, Maxims & Reflections


Top
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:02 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
In this regard, I cannot begin to remember where I had heard about elderly males breastfeeding children in some Pacific island society. But if you search on the Internet, you can find references to this occurring. Consider that ultimately, there are male and female analogs of the same sex organs in the penis and clitoris. It is just a matter of the right hormones being driven to be produced by our genetics during maturation to produce one structure or the other structure during development. There are references to female equivalents of a prostate gland and to female ejaculation, if that equivalent structure is adequately stimulated. And I'm not talking the release of urine under pressure that is shown in some pornography and called female ejaculation.

If you compare drawings of human male and female anatomy, you can see that male testicles are ovaries that developed in a different way and 'descended' to be outside the body core in the scrotum. Also that the scrotum is the equivalent of the female major 'mons', without the central divide and vagina. If you look closely at the male glans, you can see evidence of the remains of the female labia minora on each side of the urethral meatus. There are relatively abnormal developments of all of these anatomical structures that show up in children born with ambiguous sexual development and doctors must make surgical corrections and basically decide which sex to assign to the child, probably with occasional errors in choice. There are under developed penises and over developed clitorises. There are men who would prefer to be women and vice versa and some have operations to change their apparent gender. There are also males who prefer to develop or simulate breasts but maintain a penis, I think referred to as shemales. There are women who prefer the male role with other women and women who prefer to accept this arrangement. There are men who prefer the female role and prefer to accept this arrangement with men who also prefer it this way.

All of these things are on a spectrum from extremes of rarity to the 'normal' as the 'fat part under the curve' of variation. We are subject to the errors of the PMR rule set as well as the accidents and the successes. It takes all kinds to make a world. Chacun à son goût. Whatever turns you on. The problems come in when the free will of some is violated by the free will of others.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:01 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3499
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Wow. What a great discussion. I think rather than coming to some sort of consensus, the key here is to expand our awareness of all the issues and the array of opinions, and then start to build a somewhat more sophisticated TOM and TOW (Theory of Men, THeory of Women), so that we can be more effective, more understanding, more empathetic, in our relationships.

Someone above referred to evolving beyond all this primal nonsense, in a manner of speaking. Well, I think this is the big bang of TOM and TOW theory, which is that there is machine code at the level of DNA that is no longer evolving, as the effective and the ineffective reproduce, and ironically, the somewhat ineffective from the point of view of the Western elite, reproduce more.

DNA actually does not approve of success and order, if this characteristic leads to fewer children.

So you are never going to get to a point of armistice with the opposite sex until you accept that there is some machine code in their sensor platform that is not part of their intent, and that this machine code that entrained on the African Savanah, North Paleo Europe and China, is not going anywhere, ever.

Now, where the line is between hardware and somewhat moveable firmware, is up for debate. This is not a pretense for a return to barefoot and pregnant, but it may be a pretense for the female to say, "the ratrace is bullshit and I want to change lanes, and maybe take an offramp". It may mean a return to the question of "what is it that I really want", on the part of the female. It normally means a change in intent regarding the goal of her work life. Enlightened men go through the exact same process.

That's the conclusion my wife came to, so she took early retirement and now invests in an intense social life, pickleball, baking and subjecting her friends to strongly worded opinions on interier design. So her pension is half than if she had stayed five more years. My role in this was to be "all in" to support this decision, ...what she wants. This is so far from the presumption of paternalistic oppression, its ridiculous.

Equally so, the male needs to examine his hardwiring and invest in pragmatic and higher ruleset overrides, to a point. Overriding our DNA consumes energy, so it is wasteful and dangerous to gratuitously deny primal impulse. The low hanging fruit here is to seek out tasks that the female is inherently drawn to, but that the male is doing from the point of view of mutual "same-ist" belief, and make better trades regarding specialization. And vice versa. And contract out what neither of you want to do.

Lets take messiness, a key stressor in most relationships. Because of brain structure, the male does not see mess, and the female sees mess in technicolor. Recipe for disaster. So the female becomes a little more understanding of why the male leaves his socks on the floor, but as well, the male at the mental level writes and executes a pragmatic and empathetic override and tells himself "she sees-I do not-I must discipline myself to put away the socks".

She writes and executes "I see-he does not-be more tender in my attitude and interaction", so she is more careful with her tone of voice when she asks him to pick up his socks. When we assign blame to DNA (primal man, primal woman) rather than intent, we become more effective cooperators in the enterprise of marriage and relationships.

There was a recent study that was reported in the media that concluded that it is the little things in marriage that really power the harmony vector versus the divorce vector. Pay attention to trivial annoying habits and the gentle and not so gentle feedback your partner is giving you.

Professional couples are wise to invest in a house cleaner, (and of course pay them and treat them well.) For some reason, the couple of young Jewish professional couples we know invest in live-in nanny help (whether they can afford it or not) if there are children (there are always children), which greatly reduces the stress on career couples. They also have smaller houses than they can afford.

For cultural reasons, most middle and working class raised kids who can afford nannies do not have it in their culture to do so, so they feel forced to "do it all"....which means not only two very demanding careers, but as well the pressure cooker of home life. Some people understandably cannot face the loss of privacy, and this is a barrier for some even regarding a house cleaner. Be sure to hire a plain looking nanny to avoid Arnold syndrome.

In other scenarios where the girl is not a professional, it seems that there is an effectiveness pocket where the female is self-employed and stay-at-home, rather than being worn down by the low wage meat grinder. Smaller houses, smaller properties, further commutes, are tools for reducing the pressure of the financial footprint. Every situation is different.

Another thing, this "she sees, I don't see" thing, combined with the child focus, leads to the female normally becoming CEO of the house and child management. Unless she has a very soft management style, he starts to perceive his wife as "boss", which becomes increasingly far from "lover". Not good. Not good at the primal level. And then if he has a mean female boss at the office, he then starts to code female="feeling bad" at the firmware level, and the influence of office events transmits to his marriage and how he relates to women generally.

When the garbage is not taken out in the exact way that you would like, pause and consider how you are going to deal with this decision fork in the road. Are your words (and more importantly, tone of voice) going to dig your relationship one step closer to mutual hatred, or are you going to just let the garbage be taken out with incompetence, and so be it.

Is it really that important that things be done just so? To what extent are you perceiving your husband as "staff" rather than "lover", and treating him so? Is this really a good strategy, for you?

Advice item #24 to males - have nothing to do with mean female bosses if you can. This will fuck up your attitude to women generally.

observations from planet 3, sun 432, universe 300007, year of our AUM 9325585585078758479457475878787492749779779827979279274279749279274927492749. ; - )

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:38 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3499
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Quote:
So, a feminist is kinda like having little-man syndrome but being proud of it?
fear based feminism, which is one variety of feminism, is kinda a religion that celebrates being an asshole, and I see this somewhat with some lesbian friends.

I don't want to generalize. I have met some lesbian couples that have a depth of quality that takes my breath away.

in the modern office, women managers are under pressure to be perceived as tough, while male managers are under pressure to be perceived as something other than the "angry white man".

so some worker bees of both sexes adopt the rule of thumb of presuming women mangers are assholes, until proven otherwise.

It may be a generation thing. There seems to be less fear in this the younger you are.

This female fetish with the ego and fear practices of the boys, I have long felt is somehow a spiritual crime, in some sense.

I somehow think that women should know better. A mean girl is somehow more offensive, than a mean boy.

PLease don't take this personally...I see your intent was good. But let me rant for a minute.

The short man who figures out how to be genuinely powerful, with love and effectiveness, rather than resorting to the shortsighted game of overcompensated ego and fear, is a wonder to behold, a magnificent creation.

This one remarkably short guy in our circle has his own company and three black belts...and could kill you with his nose ; - )..and he is the first one running to help when there is a crisis. I suspect his incarnation is going to be put on display in an NPMR museum to inspire people.

There are few things that make me more angry than normal or tall people mocking or making fun of short men. Its not like they chose to be short. Pretty girls mocking plain girls. White trash feeling superior simply because of skin color...all has the same vibe.

We all have to take our turn with challenging incarnations in order to experience what each thing feels like, and figure out how to be serene regardless of the cards we are dealt.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:17 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6501
Location: Ocala, FL
I love it when men talk about feminism like they know what they are talking about.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:31 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 536
Quote:
I love it when men talk about feminism like they know what they are talking about.
Just as the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement would not have progressed without the support of white anti-racists, feminism would not have had successes without male feminists. You think just because we are male we don’t know what we’re talking about? We are consciousness first, human second, and male or female third.

If you have more enlightening insights to add than what you see here, it may be more productive to speak them. Sharing your experience and perspective is the only way to help us open our mind, unless you truly do believe that we are incapable of understanding it. If you do believe that, you're wrong.

_________________
Everything is simpler than we can imagine, at the same time more complex and intertwined than can be comprehended--Goethe, Maxims & Reflections


Top
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:40 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:51 pm
Posts: 73
Hi S. Lareck--

1. Maybe you could elaborate. I hope that some of my earlier remarks did express a different sort of feminism.
Quote:
but we should not forget the immense courage and sacrifice it took for women to fight for the rights they have today. Female suffrage, abortion and birth control rights, choice of marital partner and rights within that marriage, access to education, equal pay, protection from sexual predation, right to sexual expression.
Really my philosophy is that we do not use force against others or constrain them unless absolutely necessary. That philosophy would take care of pretty much all oppression of women. But I would trade my worthless suffrage for the right to stay home and breast feed my babies without hesitation.
Quote:
2. Male dominance over the external environment has much more importance in agricultural and industrial societies, where physical work is required to survive, but this has lost its importance as we have entered the information age and created tools and technologies and social systems to do much of this work for us.
Male dominance over the external environment goes way, way back. It goes to before we were human. Most male animals roam farther than the female, and have a much better sense of direction. Males orient by the cardinal directions (I'm talking various species) and the females orient by visual, local cues. In social animals, if the male wants to hang around the Society (society is by definition where the females are) then he has to make himself useful. The female is by default useful. The males use their superior ability to orient to lead the pack, and are ready to risk themselves to defend it. If they did not do these things, there would be no reason for the females to tolerate their presence.

Perhaps you think that sitting indoors and working with a computer constitutes a change from external to internal? But that is not so. A spear, a plow, a computer are all externals.
Quote:
In my view, as technological innovations alter the external environment, males and females will evolve, over a very long period of time. As physical exertion and focus on the dominating the natural world becomes less important, males will begin to learn and practice the traditionally female practices of sensitivity, personal relationships, and communication. At the same time, females will have the opportunity to learn and practice the traditionally male practices of manipulation and mastery of the outside environment. These practices are sexless.
Well, for one thing, we are living in a time when we have forgotten our connection to nature and how it works, because of oil. Now, we are in peak oil. Some people think we will innovate our way out of this dilemma, but that is not certain. We may have an ecotechnic future of some sort, but we cannot continue the way we have, as nearly every system (water, soil, oceans) is being destroyed. It makes me uncomfortable when people are ready to throw away our DNA because we are no longer dependent on nature (so they think). There are still a lot of hard, dangerous jobs, and guess what, women aren't doing them. How many women on oil rigs? How many women were out fixing the electric in subfreezing weather night and day? It does irritate me when some woman who lives in a city puts a bumper sticker on her car that says A Woman Needs A Man Like a Fish Needs A Bicycle.

That fool walks into an apartment built and designed by men, drives a car built and designed by men with metals mined by men, and drives on roads built and designed by men, with a traffic safety system built and designed by men, and flicks on her light when she gets home because of male coal miners and male electric workers, eats food farmed by men, works in an office built and designed by men and uses the telephone and computer which were built and designed by men. And much of that building was hard, dangerous work.
Dominating the physical world has not disappeared. Our technology is just that - a domination of the physical world. That's why men invented it.

Agriculture will be necessary as long as we still require food. Now, we are destroying the ecosystem by farming methods which are against nature and dependent upon oil. This is a brick wall.

But of course men can do women's work and women can sometimes do some men's work. It is obvious that evolution is more efficient if the sexes have talents not possessed by the other in a strong degree, but it is also obviously more efficient if we can fill in for one another in a pinch. And we do.
Quote:
3. Building on this above point: there is reason to question the usefulness of a rigid divide between male and female. Women who cannot bear children, men who are attracted to men, females who are born into male bodies…all of this blurs the line between the “two” sexes. There are males for whom all this talk about competing, fighting, and mastery is completely foreign, and there are females who have a natural urge to dominate and compete. Yes, there are boy toddlers who naturally act aggressive, but there are also boy toddlers who want to coddle dolls. To my mind, this is evidence of the evolution I described above, these are perfectly natural responses to the lessening importance of a divide between the sexes, and I welcome this variation in our species.
I agree we should not have a rigid divide. It doesn't matter if one person in a thousand wants to buck the trend. Let them.

And look, I think more advanced souls are rather androgynous in a way. I knew a guy who was the most manly of men, very strong, did dangerous work well, ran his own business at age 22, was brave and independent, and yet was also marvelous with babies, was everyone's shoulder to cry on, adored by women and never once in his life got into a fistfight or hurt anyone. Wouldn't have joined the army in a million years but played football and rugby.
I do not think this indicates some kind of evolution.
You put "two" sexes in quotes, as if there were not really two. Two sexes is why we have romance.

I'm thinking again of Bette saying that it is patriarchal to state that men gravitate to the outer world and women to the inner. This is precisely my discomfort with modern feminism. The assumption is automatic that we should find this insulting. This means we have internalized that male = good and desirable and female = worthless. But this universe runs on dualities, and yin and yang are how things work, so why assume that the inner is inferior to the outer simply because it is feminine? The goal of Hinduism and Buddhism is to learn to go within, to the inner world, which is just as vast as the outer, and arguably more important.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 351 posts ]  Go to page Previous 13 4 5 6 724 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited